memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Unneeded starship class templates ; Template:AndromedaClassStarships, Template:DenevaClassStarships, Template:FederationClassStarships, Template:KorolevClassStarships, Template:MediterraneanClassStarships, Template:NiagaraClassStarships, Template:OlympicClassStarships, Template:RigelClassStarships, Template:SpringfieldClassStarships, Template:SteamrunnerClassStarships, Template:WambunduClassStarships (2 ships listed); Template:CheyenneClassStarships, Template:ChimeraClassStarships, Template:Hokule‘aClassStarships, Template:MercedClassStarships, Template:NorwayClassStarships, Template:SaberClassStarships, Template:SoyuzClassStarships, Template:WellsClassStarships, Template:YorkshireClassStarships, Template:ZodiacClassStarships (1 ship listed): I don't think we need templates for classes with only two ships attached to them... especially since half of the ships listed may be deleted, leaving only one ship listed on each, making the templates even more unnecessary. --From Andoria with Love 07:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :* I vote Delete as I believe the minimum should be kept at 3 starships, as per my wishes on a talk page somewhere. I don't think it's a good idea, and it looks better with 3+ to me. (BTW, you're supposed to add the deletion template to a template's talk page).--Tim Thomason 10:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :*'Delete' Aholland 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :*Definitely delete those with only one ship, as those are simply unnecessary. I'm not so sure about those with more than one, though, and vote to keep those for the moment - we either want direct links between ships of the same class or we don't, independent of the actual number of known ships of that class. For consistency, shouldn't we have these navigation templates whenever there is something to navigate? -- Cid Highwind 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC) :*'Delete' seeing as it's kind of redundant to have single link templates. For two ships, it's kind of iffy, but definitely keep those that have more than three links. - Enzo Aquarius 16:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC) **I've seperated those with one ship listed from those with two. --From Andoria with Love 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. Useful for navigation, I use them all the time. Jaz talk | novels 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' per Cid. --Galaxy001 00:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. Star Trek is its own universe, the classes have names from background information not available to everyone. Also from backstage information (or common sense) is that Starfleet vessels are named after its prototype so technically there should be at least two ships listed on every navigation template -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 13:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC) ** Actually, we more or less already decided otherwise. Discussion here --Alan del Beccio 21:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :*Okay, I've gone ahead and deleted those with only one ship on 'em, but I went ahead and held off on deleting the ones with two ships, as per Cid, Jaz, and Kobi. Does anybody else believe these should stay? --From Andoria with Love 05:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC) ::*Sooo... do ya'll wanna keep these? There's only two ships on the remaining templates. So far, we have four votes for their deletion and four votes to keep them. I think yesterday was the last day, so if there are no more votes against keeping them, then we'll keep 'em, as per policy. --From Andoria with Love 20:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :::Alrighty, no consensus to delete these was reached, so I guess we'll be keeping them. So... where do we archive this discussion? Can't do it for every single template article we kept, so I think we should just place it in the deletion archive. --From Andoria with Love 14:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC) UESPA Headquarters ; UESPA Headquarters : Does this even need its own article? The UESPA article basically states that "UESPA was headquartered at UESPA Headquarters" (d'oh!), and this article doesn't tell us anything else. Besides, the main UESPA article is the only one linking to this at the moment - it seems to me as if the term should be "UESPA _h_eadquarters" instead, and not linked to a separate article. If necessary, we could create a redirect, although I don't even see a need for that at the moment. -- Cid Highwind 09:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *Yeah, this info is already present at the main UESPA page, I don't think there's a need to have a seperate article with the same info. As you said, it doesn't really tell us anything else. Delete. The line must be drawn here! This far! No farther! --From Andoria with Love 10:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Aholland 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' -- this was referenced in canon dialogue as an actual place. -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC) **Neither the pages linked to above nor the actual dialogue are really that unambiguous, I think. -- Cid Highwind 23:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC) * Keep, in Charlie X Kirk alerts UESPA headquarters of the destruction of the Antaries. Thus there is a headquarter. -- TOSrules 16:23, 13 March 2006 *'Delete'. The article does not contain any useful information (other than what can be derived from the name) and should remain a red link to avoid confusion and ecourage it to be devoped. Jaz talk | novels 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC) *'Keep', it has the same right to exist as Starfleet Headquarters. Kennelly 13:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' - There's no reason not to have it. It WAS mentioned in canon Trek by Kirk, and thus deserves an entry like all other referenced materials mentioned by any canon character. - Enzo Aquarius 13:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': Just to make clear what I mean. This was not necessarily referenced as an "actual place" in dialogue. It could simply have meant the institution that just happens to supervise UESPA. Either way, with no additional information besides what already exists on UESPA, combined with the facts that this is the only page linking to it and there's absolutely no way of this article ever becoming more than stub-sized, I don't understand the hesitation to at least make this a redirect. This is not like Starfleet Headquarters which was referenced in several episodes and movies spanning 200 years of Trek history. -- Cid Highwind 14:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': I, too, see no reason not to delete it, although I don't have a problem with it becoming a redirect if deletion is a problem. --From Andoria with Love 00:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC) *The article has been expanded, now including some information not implied in the title, so I change my vote to keep. Jaz talk | novels 00:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC) :*Um... the article is exactly the same as it was when you first voted... --From Andoria with Love 14:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Beatrice Arthur ;Beatrice Arthur: Unsourced, uncredited supposition. The only place where she is listed as being the voice of Suspiria is at the IMDb, which is not a highly reliable source and was likely put there as a joke. Also, the voice in the episode sounds nothing like her. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 22:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC) ::Just a comment: The same might be true for Jason Marsden voicing Raymond Marr and Dustin Diamond playing the wind dancer in "Cost of Living". Where, apart from the IMDb is that info from? --Jörg 22:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC) :::True. I'm willing to give Jason Marsden the benefit of the doubt since he is a well-known voice actor (he's been credited in a confirmed role on Trek anyway), but the Dustin Diamond IMDb credit seems like it may have been the work of the same trickster... -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC) :::: The Dustin Diamond reference also made it to Wikipedia. Anyway, back on topic... --Alan del Beccio 22:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC) :::::Seems to me that some sort of verification is needed -- perhaps this is a good way to take advantage of using a to find another way to verify whether these actors took part in the productions that WP and IMDb credit them with. Emailing someone's publicist, perhaps? -- Captain M.K.B. 23:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC) ::::::True, but I just watched the episode... Arthur has a very distinctive voice. This person was clearly not her. Besides, I think it would've been mentioned elsewhere by now if it were true, or she would've been credited as "voice of Suspiria" in the first place... she's a fairly well-known actress. And it isn't the first time IMDb information has been tampered with... it's not difficult to do especially with obscure things like this. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 03:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Euthanasia Euthanasia Maybe it is a valid article, but the subject is already covered in Suicide.